So you're saying that the indictment (which as described does not constitute a conviction and therefore is not case law) is relevant if someone creates an identity for the purpose of deluding others, uses it to inflict emotional distress, and the result is the suicide of a member of the discussion forum - and the bully lives in the City of Dardenne Prairie or more generally the State of Missouri, which have enacted statutes since the girl's death. Is that correct? I don't plan to comment further in this thread. In fact, had you and Philip not replied, I would not have been aware of it. To my mind, my stance is a very appropriate one. On Jun 3, 2008, at 9:31 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > > > --On Monday, June 02, 2008 10:17:16 -0700 TS Glassey > <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I brought this up a number of times and Harald's solution was to >> ban me >> from the list. Something that under the US CFAA is prosecutable... >> His >> claim was that I failed to show him the money - that special case >> which >> establishes that as a standard. > > I believe I told you to show competent legal advice saying that > what you > were posting was relevant to the IETF. > > I have read your provided material, and fail to see any sign of such > competent legal advice; no name but your own is attached to the > claim of > relevance. > > (for those who wonder what case it is, it is > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Meier>.) > > Harald > > _______________________________________________ > IETF mailing list > IETF@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf